Ed Bailey <bailey@hagar.ph.utexas.edu> writes:> As someone else said, if you step out of your car to go into the grocery> store, there is the chance that someone else will sneak in and steal it> while you're shopping.

No, this was my article, and that's not what I said at all. What I said
was that the worry about having your car stolen doesn't prevent you from
going shopping; if it did, as in Olympia, then there would be no
supermarkets.

> This is silly. A noble should be able to say "You five soldiers stay here> and guard the ship until I get back". IM(NS)HO, GARRISON should be changed> to reflect that. Shouldn't be that hard to have "uncastled" garrisons, and> it would make ships & towers & such much safer.

I certainly disagree with "much" safer. Frankly I think people who do
this are going to get completely screwed. If there are really
unfriendly people around, the last thing you want to do is divide your
forces and get them taken out piecemeal.

> I suggest that garrisons in money-making, nobleless special locations, e.g.> inns & castles hold the money that they gather and pay their expenses from> those earnings.

I think the whole idea of taking things that nobles now have to do (like
sitting in inns and collecting the revenues), and allowing noble-less
forces to do them, drastically alters game balance and should be viewed
with extreme skepticism. Nobles currently play a vital role in all
parts of the game. NPs are intentionally scarce. I think that balance
currently works well and I can't imagine that dramatic changes to it
will seriously be considered at this point.